And yet the world football governing body's newly-published 2017 financial report indicates that, in business terms at least, the awesome financial punch packed by the planet's most universally popular game is already helping President Gianni Infantino and his team to right the ship.

How the commercial leaders of other sports must envy football's colossal earning power.

Of course, the organisation has not escaped unscathed from the woes that have assailed it in recent times.

Broadly speaking, it now looks like the FIFA business will have trodden water over the troubled 2015-18 World Cup cycle, whereas other football properties, such as for example the Premier League with its enormous 2016-19 domestic broadcasting deal, have taken a big stride forward.

If FIFA indeed exceeds its 2015-18 revenue budget of $5.66 billion (£4.04 billion/€4.62 billion) as it expects, it might just generate more in the cycle culminating with Russia 2018 than the $5.72 billion (£4.08 billion/€4.67 billion) it mustered under the ancien regime in 2011-14.

Notwithstanding today's unveiling of Rostelecom as a regional supporter of Russia 2018, FIFA will do well to match the $1.63 billion (£1.16 billion/€1.33 billion) it earned from marketing rights in that Brazil 2014 cycle: four years on, the 2015-18 marketing rights budget is only $1.45 billion (£1.04 billion/€1.18 billion).

With FIFA so dependent financially on its flagship property, the World Cup, the picture will not become entirely clear until this time next year - and a further deterioration in relations between hosts Russia and the sport's traditional and financial heartland of Western Europe would prompt the odd jitter at the body's Zurich base.

However, a few of those proverbial green shoots of recovery are already visible above the surface.

For one thing, while the organisation reported a net loss of a not insignificant $191.5 million (£136.7 million/€156.5 million) for 2017, this was a lot better than the loss of $489 million (£349.1 million/€399.5 million) before tax and financial outturns that had originally been budgeted.

There were a multitude of small contributory factors to this less-bad-than-expected outturn, but two of the more substantial contributions amounted to potentially favourable signs for the future.

On the cost side, the body felt able to release $65 million (£46.4 million/€53.1 million) of the provisions inserted to cover the various "legal matters" it is involved with.

At December 31, this left $197 million (£140.7 million/€160.9 million) of provisions in place.

Legal and governance costs were also well down on 2016 levels, with those related to investigations plunging from an eye-watering $50.5 million (£36.1 million/€41.3 million) to $14.4 million (£10.3 million/€11.8 million).

On the revenue side, FIFA benefited from a windfall relating to licensing rights which has carried revenue from this source comfortably beyond the $363 million (£259 million/€297 million) budgeted for the full cycle, with World Cup year still to come.

While explanations in the report were vague, FIFA has since confirmed to me that licensing contracts related to electronic gaming were partly responsible.

The year 2017 saw FIFA and sport video game developer EA Sports launch what the governing body describes as a "first-ever global competitive gaming initiative".

This will give players around the world the chance this coming August to become EA Sports FIFA 18 world champion.

The organisation has, I think it is fair to say, been striving for years to diversify the one-dimensional business model that leaves it utterly dependent on the quadrennial men's World Cup.

The fast-growing women's game and a restructured Club World Cup may yet be part of the remedy; but so, I am beginning to think, might e-sport.

The current projection is for normal service, i.e significant growth, to resume in the 2019-22 cycle, culminating with the World Cup in Qatar.

A new budget foresees overall revenue for this period of $6.56 billion (£4.68 billion/€5.36 billion).

This is expected to pave the way for a hefty increase, by $671 million (£479 million/€548 million) to $2.32 billion (£1.66 billion/€1.9 billion) in development and education spending.

With a Presidential election scheduled for 2019, you can expect to hear a lot about this over the next year or so.

That $6.56 billion is still less than a billion dollars higher than revenues generated by the organisation in 2011-14, however.

With administration costs and headcount set to continue to rise, something else needed to give to make such a big hike in development spending really feasible without eating into reserves.

This something else is: 1) football governance, which you could argue ought to be FIFA's prime raison d’être, whose budget has been cut from 2015-18 levels; and 2) competitions and events, which is being permitted a tiny rise.

Admittedly, provision is being made for a 10 per cent increase in prize money at Qatar 2022, compared with this year's tournament, to $440 million (£314 million/€359.5 million).

The Women's World Cup budget for next year, at $131 million (£93.5 million/€107 million), has also shot up from the $60 million (£42.8 million/€49 million) originally written into FIFA's plans four years ago for the 2015 tournament.

But FIFA is saying that the low number of Qatar 2022 venues and reduced local travel requirements, as well as the "restructuring of operational management", are helping to contain costs.

Overall savings in comparison to this year's tournament are put at about $300 million (£214 million/€245 million).

Compared with the original $2.15 billion (£1.54 billion/€1.76 billion) budget for Russia 2018, released by FIFA in 2014, Qatar 2022's projected cost, at $1.66 billion (£1.19 billion/€1.36 billion), is almost half a billion dollars lower.

These are just FIFA's costs, of course; they take no account of new stadium construction and other infrastructure.

The figures suggest, nevertheless, that, as the 2020s proceed, the Olympics may not be the only sporting mega-event likely to become a little less lavish.